India is passing through her most critical - perhaps dangerous - times. World's largest Democracy, India has today become the largest cesspool of official corruption, crime, political opportunism and caste/communal animosities. Political Parties are now Family Corporates, Bureaucracy their franchisee and crony capitalists their partners as they embark upon plundering the Nation together. Time for India to wake up and restart! One Anna or Kejriwal is not enough - Karan Kharb

Pages

Sunday, November 03, 2013

Civil Military Relations –

Need to correct an Institutional Mismatch

MG Devasahayam

(M.G. Devasahayam isaformer Army – Infantry officer who later joined the IAS. His opinion is backed by rich Cvil-Military experience. An accomplished author and a committed reformist, his is driving force in the crusade against corruption.)

The editorial page lead article
in The Hindu, “The general and his stink bombs” (September 30,
2013) flagged the “dysfunctional relationship between our democracy and the
military.” This serious issue, directly impacting on a citizen’s security and
country’s sovereignty, needs to be addressed in its proper perspective.

To do so, we need to draw on the
centuries-old wisdom of Kautilya, reiterated in modern times by the
General-turned-President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower: “When
diplomats fail to maintain peace, the soldier is called upon to restore peace.
When civil administration fails to maintain order, the soldier is called to
restore order. As the nation’s final safeguard, the army cannot afford a
failure in either circumstance. Failure of army can lead to national
catastrophe, endangering the survival of the nation.”

This sums up the role performed
by our military and the criticality of an abiding and democratic civil-military
relationship, lest the nation should face a catastrophe. It should be realised
that in war or conflicts, military men do not offer the “supreme sacrifice”
just for money or rank. There is something far more precious called “patriotism
and honour”, and this is embedded in the Indian Military Academy credo which
none of the civil servants or politicians has gone through but most military
leaders have. The civil-military relationship should be moored on such an
anchor.

Not a democratic
equation

This is not so in India’s current
“democratic dispensation” wherein the politico-civil elite continues to suffer
from the feudal-aristocratic mindset of Lord Alfred Tennyson (“Charge of the
Light Brigade” – 1854): “Theirs not to reason why,/Theirs but to do and die.”
This was reflected in the observations made by the Union Minister of State for
Defence while delivering the Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa Memorial Lecture in
mid-2012: “The military forces have remained loyal to the elected government
and have been its obedient servant.” Such an equation is not democratic.

Ironically, it is the military
leaders who have attempted to define a democratic civil-military relationship.
In his treatise “The Soldier and the State” (1998), the former Chief of the
Naval Staff, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, lays it down with a fair amount of
clarity: “The modern military profession exists as part of the government
insofar as the term ‘government’ includes the executive departments of the
nation-state... Modern democracies therefore pay great attention to the
supremacy of the political class over the military in governance, normally
referred to as ‘civilian control of the military.’ This is clearly how it
should be, since all ultimate power and decision making should be wielded by
the elected representatives of the people.”

On the eve of demitting office in
2012, General V.K. Singh fully endorsed this view with a compelling caveat: “I
am a firm believer in civilian supremacy over the military in a democracy. I
subscribe to the views of Admiral Bhagwat. However, civilian supremacy must
always be rooted in the fundamental principles of justice, merit and fairness.
Violation of this in any form must be resisted if we are to protect the
Institutional Integrity of our Armed Forces.”

The combined views of the former
chiefs of the Navy and the Army set forth certain non-negotiable imperatives
for the civil-military relationship: democracy as a vibrant and functioning
entity with the “elected representatives of the people” running the government
as per established democratic norms; the military profession existing as part
of such government; civilian supremacy to be exercised by the “elected
representatives of the people”; such supremacy to be rooted in the principles
of justice, merit and fairness; a violation of this can be resisted to protect
the institutional integrity of the armed forces.

Whether governments in India are
being run as per established democratic norms is a burning question. Even so,
India’s professional military is meant to protect, safeguard and sustain our
democratic republic wherein live one-sixth of the human race. Therefore, it is
imperative that a democratic civil-military relationship framework existed, was
practised and sustained. But unfortunately this has not even been attempted;
the civil-military relationship is not mandated in the governance system.

Matters drifted, intrigues
prevailed and things have happened in recent years and months that strike at
the very roots of the Army as an institution.

Fallout

The fallout of the sordid
happenings on the Indian Army was best summed up by defence analyst Maroof Raza: “The system has closed around the chief
and this will only embolden the bureaucracy. The fallout will be that at least
for two generations, no military commander will raise his head. And the message
for military commanders is that it isn’t merit or accuracy of documents that
will get them promotions, but pandering to the politico-bureaucratic elite. The
last bastion of professional meritocracy in India has crumbled. The damage will
be lasting.”

Despite such a damning
indictment, nothing has been done to undo the damage. What is worse, the Prime
Minister and the Defence Minister chose to ignore the letter written by Admiral
L. Ramdas, the former Navy Chief, in July 2012 raising serious military and
national security issues and seeking a high-level inquiry and remedial action.

This epitomises the near-total
collapse of the institutional framework and the atmosphere of suspicion and
alienation between the civil and military hierarchies. This is evident from the
recent high-octane controversy following the ‘leaking’ of the top-secret report
on TSD, a covert unit of the Army, the activities of which are directly related
to the safety of the soldiers on the borders, retribution on the enemy and the
security of citizens. This episode, which has created a lot of bad blood
between mainland India and Jammu & Kashmir, appears to be a ploy to justify
the scrapping of this unit by the Army Chief. This has led to consternation
among senior Army officers, who confide that this action is the single major
cause for the recent spurt in cross-border intrusions and ceasefire violations
that have led to several deaths on the Pakistan border.

It is better to light a candle
rather than continue to curse darkness. Civil and military establishments are
all a part of governance that comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and
institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests,
mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. The
military should be an intrinsic part of such a governance mechanism.

Democratic governance is
participatory, transparent and accountable and promotes justice and the rule of
law. Governance includes the government, which is its dominant part, but
transcends it by taking in the private sector and civil society. All three are
critical to sustain human development and national security. Because each has
weaknesses and strengths, democratic governance is brought about through
constructive interaction among all three — which role civil society would play.

Parliamentary
oversight

Once we broad-base the “defence”
or the “military” and move towards “national security,” civil society
participation becomes imperative. Governance then could really become a
catalyst for civil-military relationships, and bureaucracies cannot play
spoilsport.

This, coupled with parliamentary
oversight, is the best form of “civilian control of the military” in a
democracy, and that is what military leaders have defined. A set of rules
governing such a relationship between civilian authorities and the military,
and balancing the financial needs of defence and security, are the needs of the
hour.

With this concept at the core,
steps could be taken to build and sustain a democratic and functional
civil-military relationship by implementing recommendations by expert
committees and groups lying buried in the vaults of the Defence Ministry.

Contributors

Welcome to People Power

People are the Nation. Let's do everything in our power to multiply and build up 'People Power'. We must force the Government to rid the system of corruption and callousness. The least we can do is to expose and humiliate the corrupt officials, self-serving politicians, Vadra-DLF or Gadkari type of business culture, and the divisive forces destroying public goodwill in the name of caste, religion and region.

Fortunately, all these evils are not too many. Nor are they too brave. Anna, Ramdev and Kejriwal have exposed how timidly and stupidly the corrupt react. All evil is concentrated in a few hands at the top from where the fountain of corruption flows downwards. This muck, therefore, cannot be cleaned up from bottom upwards. The clean up has to start from the top!